memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Old log files Note:As this about files in the Memory Alpha: namespace related to the administration, normal deletion rules might not apply. This is more a discussion. * (I already had moved that one before realizing what it is) *Memory Alpha:Deletion log *Memory Alpha:Upload log *Memory Alpha:Protection log *Memory Alpha:Block log These five seem to be old log files from before the server move. We now have for all these. Do we want to keep the old stuff or delete it? -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', I'm all for cleaning house. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I deleted all of these pages but noticed that several still link to a lot of other internal pages. I intended to change them, but I am not sure to what, so the remaining blue links need to either have their links removed from other pages or replaced with the updated-replacement links on other those pages. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'd like to see some more comments regarding the deletion of these anyway - some other admins, perhaps? After all, these are log files, so we should definitely agree on what to do... -- Cid Highwind 08:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***To be fair, it has been 5 days AND very few of us/them seem to partake in much voting these days...be it categories, featured articles or what have ya...--Alan del Beccio 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'm not quite sure how they'd be useful, is there a feeling we should be able to peruse lists of files deleted or protected years ago? it might be nice to archive somewhere, i guess -- are we required to record vandalism and the like -- thats probably a good portion of the the block and protection info (as well as a majority of deletions). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I dont see any real reason to keep a list of individuals and IPs we've blocked from a year or year + a half ago, its really only the last 6 to 9 months that are important, if anyone is really keeping track of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) * Delete - I also don't see a reason to keep these (and honestly didn't know they existed) There's an "edit page", I'm fairly new, so I'm wondering: back in the day, you had to manually log each deleted page? - AJHalliwell 00:49, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) Favorite Son redirect ;Favourite Son : Misspelled redirect to VOY: "Favorite Son". --Shran 09:20, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'- we have no tolerance for British English here. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 12:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' I am British, but I wouldn't expect an American website to have British spelling. Tough Little Ship 12:07, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. Redirects should be deleted if they make it difficult to locate a similarly named article, might cause confusion, are offensive or simply make no sense (see ). Nothing of this applies here - in fact, it seems to be a very useful redirect for someone searching for that episode without being aware of the "correct" spelling. -- Cid Highwind 12:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*Ahh. Very good points indeed. I guess I'll go with keep, then. --Shran 13:32, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I also agree with cid, Keep Tobyk777 00:01, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) *This reminds me of when my redirect from Kubus to Kubus Oak kept disappearing (not sure who deleted it), probably because the only page linking to it was The Collaborator. As Cid said, redirects are for people who don't know the "correct" spelling, and even in cases where it seems unlikely - ie an arguably forgettable character like Kubus or an arguably obvious spelling like this - what harm could it do? Keep. --Schrei 14:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think this might be a case for expanding Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:09, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Agreed... while the admins should be more careful when it comes to immediately deleting redirects which could potentially be useful, those who created them should also remember to place a link to them on the useful redirects page so it's certain they were created for a purpose. Keep. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 16:35, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Im not sure I like this. We've already, previously agreed upon using what appeared on the title card, and clearly Commonwealth English wasn't used. If we have links (redirects or otherwise) to what is more-or-less considered "mis-spelled" terms, then people are going to start linking to them with-in articles, in which case, they are going to go from being so-called "useful redirects" to practical links. Then we would have to create links for all of the other "mis-spelled" episode titles "Judgement" (-->"Judgment," which we've deleted before) and really, do we want to open that can of worms? --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', agreed. And not just cause it'd be a big project making a bunch of redirects, just because we have decided on using American english on several occasions. - AJHalliwell 00:51, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect', for those of us who speak real English. Jaz 02:49, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I think what you meant was keep since it's already a redirect. :) I discovered earlier that it's acceptable on MA for someone to arbitrarily "correct" Commonwealth spelling in articles based on the fact that Trek is made in the US. By that logic (regardless of its merits), I have to say delete. --Schrei 02:51, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *My worry is about people who may be searching based only on hearing the name of the episode. This is not a spelling mistake, it is the commonly accepted language in most English speaking countries. While I am unsure since I do not own any DVDs, it is possible that in many regions it may be listed with the correct spelling (favourite). Jaz 21:54, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Jaz- British English is not any more real than American English. In everyday writing, "favourite" is no better or worse than "favorite." However, since Star Trek is American, its titles are too. I've gone through articles changing it from British to American English for this very reason. Favorite is correct here. See this in Ten Forward. As for the redirect, delete it, like I said earlier. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 22:37, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***It's their language and we changed the spelling because we're lazy, give them credit where it's due. But this is harmless redirect because if you're so sure that fans will type it in right then you should be equally sure that fans won't link to it as mentioned above. There's no reason not to keep this. Ben Sisqo 04:28, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **You know, this might be appropriate to keep as a redirect but add a link to it to Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings -- in this manner, we can have all links to the redirect automatically listed or changed -- basically, keeping the redirect so the articles stay connected if a non-American English writer writes a European English link, but having an easy ability to find and correct the links through the "common misspelling" resource. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:34, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Well my point is, is how do we keep it from weaseling its way into articles, which would suddenly take from the level of being a "redirect" to a "commonly accepted usage of the term"? If we keep it then that means we would have to periodically police the 'what links here' to make sure that it is only being used as a redirect and not as a "real" link, as from the American pov AND the title card spelling, it is not a "common spelling", and it technically misspelled from both the title card and script written in the American usage of English pov. --Alan del Beccio 05:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings page feeds an automatic search function at that lists all recognized misspellings -- we simply have to run a bot through every once in a while and fix all the links. Kobi does this from time to time, he does it very well. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****The Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects has a separate section for Non-American spellings now -- any redirects added there could be periodically monitored for links, and altered accordingly. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Alan is right now that I think about it. Although I said delete earlier, I want to reiterate it with less snippitiness because I can see what he means now. If someone types in Favourite Son, I think they can take a hint and figure out why it's not there, right? --Schrei 06:17, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **My count is approximately 7 to 4 in favour of keeping, after two weeks -- could we call this one finished?. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:12, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*No, I would not call it finished. In terms of the correctness of the title, "Favourite" is just as correct as "Faverit." Do you want a redirect for that? Like Schrei said, if someone types in "Favourite," and gets nothing, they can take a hint and remember that since Star Trek is American, they might just spell it without the u. I know I've said it twice before, but delete the misspelled redirect. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 03:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. If this stays, I'm creating Rules of Aquisition, Profit Motive, Rocks and Shawls, Code of Honour, Angel 1, Hide and Cue, Cumming of Age, Minds Eye, Cathexus, Persistance of Vision, Dessert Crossing, Two Days and Two Knights (and 2 Days and 2 Nights), Visa Vis, Someone to Watch O'er Me, Furry (for Fury), That Witch Survives, and Manoeuvers. They'd all be allowed under this precedent (or is it president? better make a redirect). Ben Sisqo 03:41, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*I'm not sure what to think here anymore. When I first nominated it, I was going on the basis that only what was used in the title card is accepted. Then I changed my mind when Cid brought up some good reasons to keep it. Now, I just don't know. But for now, I'm sticking with my last vote of keep -- which means I went back on the first vote I had, which was to delete. But since I was the one that brought it up and since I am now taking it back... doesn't that mean it can be removed now? I may be wrong. In fact, I probably am. Oh, well. (BTW, I struck out both my delete vote and my previous keep vote to avoid confusion.) --From Andoria with Love 03:44, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::*'Comment': Re: Ben Sisqo. The redirects for Judgment and Code of Honor I understand... but I think the others are going just a wee bit overboard, especially the "Cumming of Age" and "Two and Two Knights". --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *LOL Cumming of Age... I'm persuaded to say delete from that alone. - Vedek Dukat 04:08, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Memory Alpha is meant to be a Star Trek resource available to everyone. If the average English, Canadian, Australian, ect child is looking up this episode, it is unlikely they will remember the America arbitrarily decided to change the spelling. This IS NOT the same as "faverit". It is the commonly accepted spelling in most places in the world. There is no harm in a re-direct, in fact it improves MA by making it simpler for people to search. I therefor maintain that we keep this redirect.Jaz 04:20, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Not really, it just wastes time by having us sit and argue about this. Coke 04:30, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I've tallied 7 to 7, at the moment. And the way I still see it is that this isn't even about American v. Commonwealth English, this is about what is in the scripts, what is on the title cards -- you know stuff everyone is usually otherwise super anal about around here. And like Schrei said, if you haven't figured it out, yet, somehow managed to find this page (which isn't exactly advertised on the tv between the eHarmony ads and eBays commercials), then good god, that's what google is for! Or better yet, go to the page title Star Trek: Voyager and scroll through the episodes. Laziness is a disease, I tell ya. Anywho, if we accept those spellings then we should accept the spellings from closed captioning, the star trek encyclopedia and other secondary sources that are not quite right but acceptable, since that is essentially what this is about. For that matter, just how many redirects are we going to get out of Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places? Actually, that reminds me, there was a time I created the useful redirect Galoway to Galloway because that is how it was spelled in the end credits and a fellow user wanted to delete it, despite the fact that it was used on screen; at least it was useful for someone who was going off of the name as they read it in the credits, so I really don't see how they can support this, but, at the time, not that. --Alan del Beccio 04:40, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. This cot my eye in the recentchanges list because I wondered why it was favourite. But let me clarify, as someone who was tot english as a second language, that this is unnecessary even for people like me. The likelihood that someone is familiar enough to type in the name of a specific episode and not familiar enough to know to use American spelling is so small that it's like the saying: If you need to ask, you don't deserve to know. Makon 05:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think it's like Mike said, it's been over two weeks now & it's clear a majority think we should delete it even if the tally is closer now. Just get it over with already or I'm Cumming of Age. :oP Ben Sisqo 16:29, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Sisqo, creating redirects only because of this discussion is vandalism. --Memory 22:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' - unnecessary --Memory 22:23, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think the "Favourite Son" and "Code of Honour" redirects are more valids as Redirects because of the English writing rules, than the "Geordi LaForge" redirect to Geordi La Forge which is indeed a spelling error, keep (oh and if anyone wants a spelling correction bot, I'm willing to teach how to control one) -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 09:39, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Oh, what madness hath I wrought?! --From Andoria with Love 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Enough to make me say delete. ^_^ 1985 09:47, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. states: Delete a redirect if 1) the redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine (not the case here, in fact it helps locating the article), 2) the redirect might cause confusion (not the case here), 3) the redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (not the case here), 4) the redirect makes no sense (not the case here). There's simply no harm in keeping this redirect to aid searches for the episode. However, we can add it to the misspellings page at the same time to avoid that this redirect is linked to directly. This doesn't mean that we should go around and create every possible redirect, including clear spelling errors. As someone said above, this might be construed as vandalism, so consider yourself warned... -- Cid Highwind 10:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Archive' as soon as humanly (or whatever you may be... coughshrancough) possible. Just looking at this gives me a headache, and I think it's obvious there's no clear consensus (ie this won't be a 2/3 delete vote), so we err on the side of keeping and move on. For what it's worth, I think we should keep it, although I think my opinions above probably resemble John Kerry's voting record... --Schrei 11:14, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) Cardassian Withdrawal ;Cardassian Withdrawal: *Essentially a far weaker version of Cardassian withdrawal found on the Occupation of Bajor page. I would prefer to see it completely gone, but would reluctantly settle for a redirect. --Alan del Beccio 07:38, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** This 'nomination' somehow got removed, so I've reposted it. --Alan del Beccio 03:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect' maybe? I'm not sure how useful that would be, but given that someone created this article thinking it didn't exist, maybe we do need a redirect to prevent another misunderstanding. --Schrei 06:14, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Never mind, this was created when the occupation was a whole one paragraph, before I added... well... everything other than the intro paragraph. Still, a redirect couldn't hurt I guess. --Schrei 06:16, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' with redirect if it was referenced that way specifically onscreen. I mean if there were enough occasions where the phrase cardassian withdrawal was used specifically, then it does perhaps need a redirect. Makon 05:06, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Walter Irwin ; Walter Irwin No references, no real information. It is basically a death notice. Besides, it looks weird to me. Delete. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 22:47, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Well, it seems he did something with a trek book series http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451454383/, was it paramount approved though? - AJHalliwell 22:58, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::AJ- Thanks for putting the notice on the page. I forgot. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:01, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::It was a literary analysis magazine and paperback series, unapproved by Paramount -- I'm seeing a gray area in MA standard operating procedure -- we've already flirted with fanzine material because of things from fanzines that became canon (like the Constitution-class registries) -- but we've nixed articles on fan movies and fan-produced reference books for the time being. Maybe if things and people like this are decided as not deserving an MA article, theyd be appropriate to list in some sort of appendix section -- fan created publications that found their way into a Paramount approved publication, or even into a canon episode or film. :::Trek and The Best of Trek in particular had many detailed analyses of Star Trek ship registries and timeline dating, before the Star Trek Chronology version came out. This seems important in a small sense, since we have other review magazines in here that were Trek centered or featured Trek -- Starlog is linked a lot, for example, and TV Guide could be, in my opinion, credited as a source for behind-the-scenes info. These magazines could be considered a secondary resource -- as published works that do the same thing as MA -- present information about Star Trek. -- Mr. Irwin should probably be listed there rather than in his own article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:22, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Admiral Jones ;Jones (Admiral) and the resulting redirect Admiral Jones *Can't recall a canon source, not much to go by in the article -- its hardly readable. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:08, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' Both seem to be from a novel, definitly not from any canon source. - AJHalliwell 02:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' quick, fast, and in a hurry. Obviously non-canon. --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Makon 05:03, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' Can't even make out what it's supposed to be about. Thought there was something about Janeway, or Picard. I dono. the article is so vauge I can't even figure out what it was trying to say. Tobyk777 23:37, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Gamma Quadrant Listening Post 1 ;Gamma Quadrant Listening Post 1: * I don't recall this term being used, but I would guess, from what limited info it contains that it would be in reference to the article taht was just featured...um, Wormhole relay station. --Alan del Beccio 07:46, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' Even if this was lagitimate, there is no info in this article which isn't in the title. Tobyk777 23:35, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. I do remember an occasion or two where Sisko and the crew mentioned something about this. One was In Purgatory's Shadow, where they got the Cardassian "laundry list" that was an encoded message. Sisko specifically said "one of our listening posts in the Gamma Quadrant" picked up the signal, and in next episode they say that their last listening post just went dead shortly before the Dominion fleet comes through. I don't know about numbering though. Makon 23:48, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Google Moved from Immediate Deletions, where I think it should be :Google The search engine. Not quite an ad or spam, but still it should be delete'd. Immediately, I might add. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man]] | ''Talk'' 21:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. Vedek Dukat 21:09, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Move' to website directory Tough Little Ship 21:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' or Trim down and move, as it is all background information it certainly doesn't get it's own page. (See:"Jewish" dispute) - AJHalliwell 21:36, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Strong Delete' Google is never mentioned in Trek, ever. This article exsists just becuase the search engine was used by the writers while devising one episode. At the very most this could be a sentence on the backround info section of the episode. Tobyk777 23:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Makon 23:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Is there any question about this? I agree it shoulda been gone a long time ago... Ben Sisqo 09:15, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) Vidiians Vidiians is a duplicatte of the singular version of the article. Delete or redirect. Logan 5 21:02, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Redirect. — THOR ''=/\='' 21:29, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Delete, plural forms of a species' name is designated for lists. The old designation would have "List of Vidiians" or "List of Vulcans", but we have since dropped the "List of" and just go by "Vidiians" or "Vulcans". To expand on that example, "Vulcans" is a list of all named individuals of the Vulcan species. In order to create a list of species, I believe it has been agreed upon that there should be at least a dozen, individuals of said species. Since there has only been 2 or 3 Viidians, I still say delete. --Alan del Beccio 23:25, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'd like to bring up a point -- i don't think there are enough unnamed vidiians to fill a separate list article -- but perhaps enough that they could be listed in the vidiians page. I'll try to do it up now in case we decide to keep it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:06, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :**There seem to be 7 unnamed Vidiians: Vidiian #1+2, Vidiian surgeon and commander from "Deadlock", Vidiian Guard #1+2 from "Faces" and Vidiian Captain from "Fury". Then, there's also Chakotay as a Vidiian from "Faces" and the Vidiians in "Coda". If you need screenshots, I've got them all here on my computer. --Jörg 00:46, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :***Works with what I proposed below. --Alan del Beccio 00:51, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Probably not the place to bring this up, but I was thinking maybe we could or should do that with all species that don't have enough to fill an "unnamed X species" article. Instead of placing "unnamed X specie #1" in a subsection of the "X specie" (non-list singular) article about a species, as most unnamed individuals are currently placed, place them in the "X species" (plural) about '''its' people '''page. That way we can keep everything organized with one of three and a half options: 1) Species page (Vulcan), 2) Individuals of that species (Vulcans) 3) Unnamed individuals of that species (Unnamed Vulcans), 3½) Special circumstance: any and species that has a combined total of 5-15 individuals identified could be consolidated into #2, and then subsectioned into 'named' and 'unnamed' (like the old "List of Vulcans, etc., used to be organized before we created Unnamed Vulcans). For consistancy, this would include all unnamed individuals of the species as well. The only time we would need the "Unnamed X species" article is in the case, like we have now, where we have an extremely large list of names, such as the preexisting list of Humans, Romulans, Klingons, etc. --Alan del Beccio 00:39, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****I completely agree. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Tribute Bands